BigBallinStalin wrote:Non-profit education is not excluded from free markets.

And, the line between non-profit and for-profit is vague because both maximize profit--albeit through different means. Both must deal with their price of tuition in competitive markets, so regardless of the non-profit v. for-profit means, let's address the most important issue of education.

The main concern is the price. If it's too high, then potential students get excluded from a higher quality education. And although scholarships for filtering out potential may not sufficiently cover ALL or most students who deserve by merit that lower price, then we must consider another aspect which raises the price of education: costs of business--e.g. brick-and-mortar business models, uncertainty of future reputation mechanisms, and government regulation.

So the next step in my arguments would address:

(1) lowering the price by eschewing--on the margin--the costs of brick-and-mortar models. (By 'on the margin', I mean the optimal business model may be "10 tons of brick-and-mortar per student" or 5 tons, or 0 tons--i.e. brick-and-mortar might not be necessary at all).

(2) "But, BBS, online education or some mix may be disreputable!!!" Many universities offer online classes--but do require some % of on-site classes, so a mix is acceptable in today's world. In tomorrow's world, perhaps 100% online degrees from reputable professors plus a particular certificate and "proof of learning" (e.g. example of one's writing) would be sufficient. This would require news means of production and would involve overcoming many obstacles/uncertainties (reputation problems to name one), but given a free market, the possibilities expand.

(3) Government regulation can unintentionally narrow that scope of discovery. (Also, some reputation mechanisms, e.g. from various organizations which exchange their 'stamp of approval' upon meeting their (un)necessary standards, originate within the market and can produce unintended consequences). Although that may be the case, markets in general are much more flexible than government bureaucracies, the 'give-and-take' of politics, voting markets, etc.

Dammit. An unforeseen shift... online classrooms. So many wondrous things can happen - reduction in numbers of teachers; increased teacher salaries as demand for the highest quality teachers becomes the norm... damn you BBS! DAMN YOU!

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

Only problem with online classrooms, is that school in rea life has a second (close to first) funstion other than learning, and that is learning how to interact with people in real life, aka, to socialize with people in person.

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

obviously the money would have just been hoarded by the greedy money-grubbing CEO's of online learning companies

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

Which is why a mix of online and some brick-and-mortar may be best, but then again there's always outside--which IIRC is not far away from the average computer. I figure the time saved from online learning would yield the user more time for leisurely activities. It's not like schools are the only places that offer outdoor activities.

Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Can you imagine the possibilities of online-only classrooms? Seriously. That should fill you with excitement.

Imagine your high school (or whatever they have in NZ) computer science class was taught by Bill Gates. Media studies was taught by Anderson Cooper. Writing and literature was taught by Neil Gaiman.

If they weren't hit with a roughly 50% marginal tax rate, then they'd have either twice as much profit to invest/save/consume for whatever, or more time to dedicate to leisure (which can include teaching online classes, giving lectures, whatever.

People forget how much the government can take from them, and they forget that this money could've been spent however within a free market.

obviously the money would have just been hoarded by the greedy money-grubbing CEO's of online learning companies

Of course, investment in Scrooge Vaults full of gold will skyrocket. After the first wave of litigation, the producers will somehow manage to make the gold coins part like water, so that all CEOs can safely dive into their hoards of gold. EVIL EVIL EVIL.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Which is why a mix of online and some brick-and-mortar may be best, but then again there's always outside--which IIRC is not far away from the average computer. I figure the time saved from online learning would yield the user more time for leisurely activities. It's not like schools are the only places that offer outdoor activities.

However, social learning in schools is probably more important than what they are learning in many subjects. Finance is for the most part ruled by ex jocks, and the "well studied nerds" are forced to fix their computers when they cant calculate the extra zeros in their income anymore.

Learning how to play on the baseball team, was more important than learning how to do algebra for a career in Finance. And with the current state of the internet, I think its safe to say learning social lessons there....wont help in that regard.